Resources for World Malaria Day 2013

April 25, 2013

Not a word about condemning Rachel Carson.  No plea to use DDT to try to poison Africa or Asia to health.  That’s a great start.

More:

Mother and son under a protective bednet, the most efficient method to prevent malaria.  Columbia University MVSim image

Mother and son under a protective bednet, the most efficient method to prevent malaria. Columbia University MVSim image


April 25 is World Malaria Day — right, Bill?

April 24, 2013

He’s absolutely right.

English: World Malaria Day Button (english)

English: World Malaria Day Button (english) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What are you doing to fight malaria today?

More:


National Infant Immunization Week, April 20-27, 2013

April 23, 2013

National Infant Immunization Week:  Find out about the power to protect with immunizations on http://www.vaccines.gov/

This week is National Infant Immunization Week designated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  Vaccinations worked miracles in extending human lifespans, and in making childhood much safer from disease, for those children who get vaccinated.

Information following comes directly from the CDC:

Protect Your Baby with Immunization

Photo: A mother and childImmunization is one of the best ways parents can protect their infants from 14 serious childhood diseases before age two. Check to see if your baby is up to date on immunizations.

It is important for children to be fully immunized. Diseases that can be prevented with vaccines can be very serious – even deadly – especially for infants and young children. For example, children younger than 2 years old are at the highest risk for serious pneumococcal disease like pneumonia, blood infection (sepsis), and meningitis. Before the pneumococcal vaccine was used routinely, an estimated 17,000 cases of severe types of pneumococcal infection, like meningitis, occurred each year.

Immunization. Power to Protect.

Immunizations have helped to greatly improve the health of children in the United States. Most parents today have never seen first-hand the devastating consequences that vaccine-preventable diseases have on a family or community. While most of these diseases are not common in the United States, they persist around the world. It is important that we continue to protect our children with vaccines because outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases can and do occasionally occur in this country.

For example, in 2010, there were 27,550 people reported to have “whooping cough” (pertussis) in the United States. Twenty-seven deaths were reported – 25 of these were in children younger than 1 year old. In 2011, 222 people were reported to have measles in the United States – that’s more than any year since 1996. Measles is brought into the United States by unvaccinated U.S. residents and foreign visitors who get infected when they are in other countries. Measles is still common in many parts of the world, including Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. In fact, in France alone, more than 15,000 people were reported to have measles in 2011. Measles spreads easily, and it can be serious, causing hospitalization and even death. Young children are at highest risk for serious complications from measles.

Vaccinating your baby according to the recommended immunization schedule gives him or her the best protection against 14 serious childhood illnesses – like measles and whooping cough – before he is two years old. The recommended schedule is designed to protect infants and children early in life, when they are most vulnerable and before they are exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases.

Vaccine Information for ParentsVisit CDC’s vaccine website for parents.

The Diseases Vaccines Prevent

The recommended immunization schedule for babies includes vaccination protection against all of the following diseases:

Vaccinate On Time, Every Time

Even though the United States experiences outbreaks of some vaccine-preventable diseases, the spread of disease usually slows or stops because of immunization. If we stopped vaccinating, even the few cases we have in this country could very quickly become tens or hundreds of thousands of cases. Fortunately, most parents choose to vaccinate their children and immunization rates in this country are at or near record high levels. In fact, less than 1% of children do not receive any vaccines. However, some children have not received all of their vaccines and therefore are not fully immunized. It’s important that children receive all doses of the vaccines according to the recommended immunization schedule. Not receiving all doses of a vaccine leaves a child vulnerable to catching serious diseases.

That’s why it’s important to make sure that your child is up to date on his or her immunizations. Call your pediatrician to find out if your child is due for any vaccinations. Or, you can use this online tool to enter your child’s current record and quickly see if any doses have been skipped or missed. It is important to your child’s health to be up to date on immunizations.

Paying for Immunization

Photo: A babyMost health insurance plans cover the cost of vaccinations, but you should check with your insurance provider before going to the doctor. If you don’t have health insurance, or if your insurance does not cover vaccinations, the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program may be able to help with the cost.

The VFC program helps families of eligible children who might not otherwise have access to immunization. The program provides vaccinations at no cost. Children younger than 19 years of age are eligible for VFC vaccines if they are:

  • Medicaid-eligible
  • Uninsured
  • American Indian or Alaska Native,
  • Underinsured and vaccinated in Federally Qualified Health Centers or Rural Health Clinics.

Parents of uninsured or underinsured children who receive vaccines at no cost through the VFC Program should check with their health care providers about possible administration fees that might apply. These fees help providers cover the costs of giving the vaccines, including storing the vaccines and paying staff members to give vaccines to patients. However, VFC vaccines cannot be denied to an eligible child if a family can’t afford the fee.

Have Questions about Immunization?

  • Talk with your child’s health care professional, contact your local or state health department, or call the CDC at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636).
  • Visit CDC’s vaccine website for parents

More Information

CDC works 24/7 saving lives and protecting people from health threats to have a more secure nation. A US federal agency, CDC helps make the healthy choice the easy choice by putting science and prevention into action. CDC works to help people live longer, healthier and more productive lives.

Last syndicated: April 19, 2013
This content is brought to you by: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

More:


V for Vaccine: A slightly rude film with a powerful point

January 10, 2013

A couple of kids in the Dallas area have died already from influenza — neither had been vaccinated against it.  Deaths have occurred across the nation, frequently in young, otherwise healthy people.

Nasty flu bugs going around this year, and the every-year epidemic has hit about two months early.  One part of the good news is that the vaccines this year are especially well-suited to target the viruses that cause the trouble.  The vaccines work well every year, but especially well in 2012 and 2013.

The bad news is that millions of people haven’t bothered to get vaccinated. That’s not good.

  1. Under Obamacare, there’s no copay for insurance for a flu shot.  It’s “free” if you have any kind of insurance. In addition, county health offices offer the vaccines for free to any comers.  A couple of weeks ago at the pharmacy I stood behind a woman who confessed she’d not gotten a flu shot (pharmacies are pushing vaccinations these days, to promote their mini-clinics).  “I’ve got that crappy teachers’ insurance,” she told the technician.  “It never pays for anything like that.”  The tech looked it up, and told her that her copay was zero, and her insurance paid for it — essentially a free shot, to her.  On the way into the clinic she said, “I’ve never gotten a flu shot before.”  Oy.
  2. Think Herd Immunity:  Are you usually healthy?  Great.  But if you’re pregnant, or you work around people who are or may be pregnant, or if you’re over 60, or if you have any chronic condition like diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic sinusitis, or a raft of other things, you’re at risk, and you put others in those risk categories at risk.  My grandfather worked at a hospital while my mother and my oldest brother were living with him; after a week of my grandfather’s working in the polio ward, my brother came down with the disease.  Of course we don’t know for sure, but my grandfather kicked himself for 40 years, until his death, because he thought he’d brought home the disease my brother caught.  With vaccines, those incidents become much more rare.

Risking this blog’s G rating, I’m going to post this film, “V for Vaccine.”  Found it at New Anthropocene.  Turn up your offense filter, or ignore the language — but pay attention to what this guy says, PowerM1985:

Is it worth getting your children vaccinated if it risked them becoming autistic? In this video I give a short demonstration of why I personally believe that even if there was a risk of my child becoming autistic (AND THERE IS NOT!) I would still get them vaccinated.

You should probably know that the work of the Centers for Disease Control to correctly predict which strains of the viruses will be most prevalent, and get vaccines that will fight those viruses, has been very, very good this year.

  • Influenza A (H3N2), 2009 influenza A (H1N1), and influenza B viruses have all been identified in the U.S. this season. During the week of December 23-29, 2,346 of the 2,961 influenza positive tests reported to CDC were influenza A and 615 were influenza B viruses. Of the 1,234 influenza A viruses that were subtyped, 98% were H3 viruses and 2% were 2009 H1N1 viruses.
  • Since October 1, 2012, CDC has antigenically characterized 413 influenza viruses, including 17 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses, 281 influenza A (H3N2) viruses and 115 influenza B viruses.
    • All 17 of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses were characterized as A/California/7/2009-like. This is the influenza A (H1N1) component of the Northern Hemisphere vaccine for the 2012-2013 season.
    • Of the 281 influenza A (H3N2) viruses, 279 (99%) were characterized as A/Victoria/361/2011-like. This is the influenza A (H3N2) component of the Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccine for the 2012-2013 season.
    • Approximately 69% of the 115 influenza B viruses belonged to the B/Yamagata lineage of viruses, and were characterized as B/Wisconsin/1/2010-like, the influenza B component for the 2012-2013 Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccine. The remaining 31% of the tested influenza B viruses belonged to the B/Victoria lineage of viruses.

What are you waiting for?  Go get a flu shot!

More:

English: This is CDC Clinic Chief Nurse Lee An...

This is CDC Clinic Chief Nurse Lee Ann Jean-Louis extracting Influenza Virus Vaccine, Fluzone® from a 5 ml. vial. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Graphic on influenza, 2013 - Flu.gov

Information from Flu.gov; click image to get to active Flu Vaccine Finder


Still no ban on DDT: Treaty monitors allow DDT use to continue

December 16, 2012

Real news on a topic like DDT takes a while to filter into the public sphere, especially with interest groups, lobbyists and Astro-Turf groups working hard to fuzz up the messages.

News from the DDT Expert Group of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention was posted recently at the Stockholm Convention website — the meeting was held in early December in Geneva, Switzerland.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pol...

Logo of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Treaty) Wikipedia image

In the stuffy talk of international relations, the Stockholm Convention in this case refers to a treaty put into effect in 2001, sometimes known as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty (POPs).  Now with more than 152 signatory nations and 178 entities offering some sort of ratification (not the U.S., sadly), the treaty urges control of chemicals that do not quickly break down once released into the environment, and which often end up as pollutants.  In setting up the agreement, there was a list of a dozen particularly nasty chemicals branded the “Dirty Dozen” particularly targeted for control due to their perniciousness — DDT was one of that group.

DDT can still play a role in fighting some insect-carried diseases, like malaria.  Since the treaty was worked out through the UN’s health arm, the World Health Organization (WHO), it holds a special reservation for DDT, keeping DDT available for use to fight disease.   Six years ago WHO developed a group to monitor DDT specifically, looking at whether it is still needed or whether its special provisions should be dropped.  The DDT Expert Group meets every two years.

Here’s the press release on the most recent meeting:

Stockholm Convention continues to allow DDT use for disease vector control

Fourth meeting of the DDT Expert Group assesses continued need for DDT, 3–5 December 2012, Geneva

Mosqutio larvae, image from WHO

Mosqutio larvae, WHO image

The Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention, under the guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO), allows the use of the insecticide DDT in disease vector control to protect public health.

Mosquito larvae

The Stockholm Convention lists dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, better known at DDT, in its Annex B to restrict its production and use except for Parties that have notified the Secretariat of their intention to produce and /or use it for disease vector control. With the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT, the Convention requires that the Conference of the Parties shall encourage each Party using DDT to develop and implement an action plan as part of the implementation plan of its obligation of the Convention.

At its fifth meeting held in April 2011, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention concluded that “countries that are relying on DDT for disease vector control may need to continue such use until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives are available for a sustainable transition away from DDT.” It also decided to evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties “with the objective of accelerating the identification and development of locally appropriate cost-effective and safe alternatives.”

The DDT Expert Group was established in 2006 by the Conference of the Parties. The Group is mandated to assess, every two years, in consultation with the World Health Organization, the available scientific, technical, environmental and economic information related to production and use of DDT for consideration by the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention in its evaluation of continued need for DDT for disease vector control.

The fourth meeting of the DDT Expert Group reviewed as part of this ongoing assessment:

  1. Insecticide resistance (DDT and alternatives)
  2. New alternative products, including the work of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee
  3. Transition from DDT in disease vector control
  4. Decision support tool for vector control.

The DDT expert group recognized that there is a continued need for DDT in specific settings for disease vector control where effective or safer alternatives are still lacking. It recommended that the use of DDT in Indoor Residual Spray should be limited only to the most appropriate situations based on operational feasibility, epidemiological impact of disease transmission, entomological data and insecticide resistance management. It also recommended that countries should undertake further research and implementation of non-chemical methods and strategies for disease vector control to supplement reduced reliance on DDT.

The findings of the DDT Expert Group’s will be presented at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, being held back-to-back with the meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Rotterdam and Basel conventions, from 28 April to 11 May 2013, in Geneva.

Nothing too exciting.  Environmentalists should note DDT is still available for use, where need is great.  Use should be carefully controlled.  Pro-DDT propagandists should note, but won’t, that there is no ban on DDT yet, and that DDT is still available to fight malaria, wherever health workers make a determination it can work.  If anyone is really paying attention, this is one more complete and total refutation of the DDT Ban Hoax.

Rachel Carson’s ghost expresses concern that there is not yet a safe substitute for DDT to fight malaria, but is gratified that disease fighters and serious scientists now follow the concepts of safe chemical use she urged in 1962.

More:


Laissez Faire Today, lazy and unfair as yesterday on issues of DDT

September 25, 2012

In June I drew encouragement that Henry I. Miller, the musty old anti-science physician at the Hoover Institution, had not renewed his annual plea to bring back DDT.  Miller is just one of the most predictable trolls of science and history; most years he waits until there are a number of West Nile virus victims, and then he claims we could have prevented it had we just jailed Rachel Carson and poisoned the hell out of America, Africa, Asia and the Moon with DDT.  For years I’ve reminded him in various fora that DDT is particularly inappropriate for West Nile . . .

Rachel Carson Homestead Springdale, PA

Rachel Carson Homestead Springdale, Pennsylvania (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since June, Miller popped up and popped off in Forbes, but using the event of the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s brilliant book Silent Spring.  Brilliance and science and history aside, Miller still believes that protecting wildlife and humans from DDT’s manifold harms is a threat to free enterprise — how can anyone be expected to make a profit if they can’t poison their customers?

Miller is not the only throwback to the time before the Age of Reason, though.  It’s time to put the rebuttals on the record, again.

Comes this morning Jeffrey Tucker of Laissez Faire Today, complaining that the resurgence of bedbugs in America is an assault on democracy, apple pie, free enterprise, and Rachel Carson should be exhumed and tortured for her personal banning of DDT worldwide.  You can read his screed.  He’s full of unrighteous and unholy indignation at imagined faults of Carson and imagined benignity of pesticides.

I responded (links added here):

I’m shocked by your mischaracterizations of Rachel Carson, her great book Silent Spring (which it appears to me you didn’t read and don’t know at all), and pesticide regulation. Consequently, you err in history and science, and conclusion. Let me detail the hub of your errors.

You wrote:

Carson decried the idea that man should rule nature. “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species — man — acquired significant power to alter the nature of the world.” This anthropocentrism she decried.

Carson was concerned that we were changing things that would have greater effects later, and that those effects would hurt humans. Her concern was entirely anthropocentric: What makes life worth living? Should we use chemicals that kill our children, cripple us, and create havoc in the things we enjoy in the outdoors, especially if we don’t know the ultimate effects?

Exactly contrary to your claim, her book was directed at the quality and quantity of human lives. She wanted long, good lives, for more people. How could you miss that, if you read any of her writings?

She suggested that killing a bedbug is no different from killing your neighbor: “Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is — whether its victim is human or animal — we cannot expect things to be much better in this world… We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature.”

Carson never wrote that there should be difficulty in killing bedbugs. The passage you quote, but conspiratorially do not cite, comes not from Silent Spring, but from a commentary on a compilation of hunting stories.* She’s referring to killing for the sake of killing, in that passage. I think it’s rather dishonest to claim she equates fighting biting bedbugs with killing animals unsportingly. I worry that you find it necessary to so grossly and dishonestly overstate your case. Is your case so weak?

In fact, she spoke of animals in patently untrue ways: “These creatures are innocent of any harm to man. Indeed, by their very existence they and their fellows make his life more pleasant.”

She did not write that about bedbugs. That’s a false claim.**

I guess she never heard of the Black Death.

I guess you never heard of accuracy. On page 266 of Silent Spring Carson directly addressed plague in a list of insect- and arthropod-borne diseases:

“The list of diseases and their insect carriers, or vectors, includes typhus and body lice, plague and rat fleas, African sleeping sickness and tsetse flies, various fevers and ticks, and innumerable others.

These are important problems and must be met. No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are making it worse.

Carson describes abuse of pesticides — such as DDT on bedbugs — that actually makes the insects stronger and tougher to get rid of. That appears to be your stand, now, to do whatever Carson said not to do, in order to poke a thumb in her eye, even if it means making bedbugs worse.

[Tucker continued:] In short, she seemed to suggest that bedbugs — among all the millions of other killer insects in the world — enjoy some kind of right to life. It was a theory that could be embraced only in a world without malaria and bedbugs. But embraced it was.

That’s total fiction. What you write is completely divorced from fact.

By 1972, DDT was banned. And not only DDT. The whole enterprise of coming up with better and better ways to further human life and protect its flourishing was hobbled.

By 1960, DDT had ceased to work against bedbugs — this was one of the things that worried Carson*** and would worry any responsible person [see Bug Girl's blog]. In her book, Carson warned that indiscriminate use and abuse of DDT would render it useless to fight disease and other insects and pests. By 1965, super mosquito-fighter Fred Soper and the World Health Organization had to stop their campaign to eradicate malaria when they discovered that abuse of DDT in agriculture and other uses had bred malaria-carrying mosquitoes in central and Subsaharan Africa that were resistant and immune to DDT. Keep in mind that the U.S. ban on DDT applied only in the U.S., and only one other nation in the world had a similar ban. DDT has never been banned in Africa, nor Asia.

Carson sounded the warning in 1962. By 1972, when the U.S. banned use of DDT on agricultural crops (and only on crops), it was too late to preserve DDT as a key tool to wipe out malaria.

Was the pesticide industry “hobbled?” Not at all. EPA’s order on DDT explicitly left manufacturing in the U.S. available for export — keeping profits with the pesticide companies, and multiplying the stocks of DDT available to fight disease anywhere in the world that anyone wanted to use it.

The fact is that DDT was a fortunate find, a bit of a miracle substance, and we overused it, thereby cutting short by decades its career as a human life-saver. That was exactly what Carson feared, that human lives would be lost and made miserable, unnecessarily and prematurely, by unthinking use of chemical substances. Pesticide manufacturers have been unable to come up with a second DDT, but not because regulation prevents it. Carson understood that.

There is no shortage of science-ignorant, and science-abusive websites that claim Rachel Carson erred. But 50 years out, the judgment of the President’s Science Advisory Council on her book remains valid: It’s accurate, and correct, and we need to pay attention to what she wrote. Not a jot nor tittle of what Carson wrote in 1962 has proven to be in error. Quite the contrary, as Discover Magazine noted in 2007, thousands of peer-reviewed studies reinforce the science she cited then.

Malaria deaths today are at the lowest level in human history, largely without DDT, and much due to malaria fighters having adopted the methods of fighting the disease that Carson advocated in 1962. Unfortunately, those methods were not adopted for nearly 40 years. Still, the reductions in malaria are remarkable. At peak DDT use in 1959 and 1960, a half-billion people in the world got malaria every year, one-sixth of the world’s people. 4 million died from the disease. In 2009, about 250 million people got malaria — a reduction of 50% in infections — and fewer than 800,000 people died — a dramatic reduction of more than 75% in death toll. This is all the more remarkable when we realize that world population more than doubled in the interim, and at least a billion more people now live in malaria-endemic areas. Much or most of that progress has been without DDT, of necessity — every mosquito on Earth today now carries the alleles of resistance and immunity to DDT.

You impugn a great scientist and wonderful writer on false grounds, and to damaging effect. I hope you’re not so careless in other research.

Rachel Carson was right. The re-emergence of bedbugs, 50 years after she wrote, is not due to anything Carson said, but is instead due to people who petulantly refused to listen to her careful and hard citations to science, and exhortations to stick to what we know to be true to protect human health and the quality of life.

_____________

* Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge, by Lisa H. Sideris, Kathleen Dean Moore, citing another of Carson’s writings, a critique of a collection of Aldo Leopold’s essays on hunting, Round River.

**  Here is the full quote, from pages 99-100 of Silent Spring, highlights added here:

Incidents like the eastern Illinois spraying raise a question that is not only scientific but moral. The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized. These insecticides are not selective poisons; they do not single out the one species of which we desire to be rid. Each of them is used for the simple reason that it is a deadly poison. It therefore poisons all life with which it comes in contact: the cat beloved of some family, the farmer’s cattle, the rabbit in the field, and the horned lark out of the sky. These creatures are innocent of any harm to man. Indeed, by their very existence they and their fellows make his life more pleasant. Yet he rewards them with a death that is not only sudden but horrible. Scientific observers at Sheldon described the symptoms of a meadowlark found near death: ‘Although it lacked muscular coordination and could not fly or stand, it continued to beat its wings and clutch with its toes while lying on its side. Its beak was held open and breathing was labored.’ Even more pitiful was the mute testimony of the dead ground squirrels, which ‘exhibited a characteristic attitude in death. The back was bowed, and the forelegs with the toes of the feet tightly clenched were drawn close to the thorax…The head and neck were outstretched and the mouth often contained dirt, suggesting that the dying animal had been biting at the ground.’

***  See page 273 of Silent Spring.

More:


Hey, Dallas: Warning labels for the pesticides being sprayed on you

August 18, 2012

Clarke Mosquito Control Co. kindly put up a .pdf of the sample warning label that accompanies Duet, the pesticide the company is spraying to cover all of the City of Dallas and most of Dallas County, in the continuing fight against West Nile virusRead the label at their site, here.

Duet pesticide warning label, from Clarke Mosquito Control Co.

Key information from the label (all links added here):

Active Ingredients

  • Prallethrin: (RS)-2-methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propynyl) cyclopent-2-enyl-(1RS)-cis,trans-chrysanthemate……………………………………….1.00%
  • Sumithrin®: 3-Phenoxybenzyl-(1RS, 3RS; 1RS, 3SR)-2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methylprop-1-enyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate ……..5.00%
  • Piperonyl Butoxide, Technical * ………………………………………………..5.00%
  • Other Ingredients ** …………………………………………………………….89.00%
  • 100.00%

Contains 0.085 pounds of Technical Prallethrin/Gallon, 0.37 pounds of Technical Sumithrin®/Gallon, and 0.37 pounds Technical Piperonyl Butoxide/Gallon
* Equivalent to 4.00% (butylcarbityl) (6-propylpiperonyl) ether and 1.00% related compounds.
** Contains petroleumdistillate

CAUTION
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
PRECAUCION AL USUARIO: Si usted no lee ingles, no use este producto hasta que la etiqueta haya sido explicado ampliamente

FIRST AID
IF SWALLOWED: Immediately call a poison control center or doctor. Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center or a doctor. Do not give any liquid to the person. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for treatment. For information regarding medical emergencies or pesticide incidents, call 1-888-740-8712.
NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Contains petroleum distillate – vomiting may cause aspiration pneumonia.

PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION. Harmful if swallowed. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before eating, drinking, chewing gum, or using tobacco. Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
This product is toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and aquatic invertebrates. Runoff from treated areas or deposition of spray droplets into a body of water may be hazardous to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply over bodies of water (lakes, rivers, permanent streams, natural ponds, commercial fish ponds, swamps, marshes or estuaries), except when necessary to target areas where adult mosquitoes are present, and weather conditions will facilitate movement of applied material beyond the body of water in order to minimize incidental deposition into the water body. Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing of equipment rinsate or wash waters.

BEE WARNING: This product is toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply to or allow drift onto blooming crops or weeds when bees are visiting the treatment area, except when applications are made to prevent or control a threat to public and/or animal health determined by a state, tribal or local health or vector control agency on the basis of documented evidence of disease causing agents in vector mosquitoes or the occurrence of mosquito-borne disease in animal or human populations, or if specifically approved by the state or tribe during a natural disaster recovery effort.

PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL HAZARDS
Do not use or store near heat or open flame.

DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

For use only by federal, state, tribal or local government officials responsible for public health or vector control, or by persons certified in the appropriate category or otherwise authorized by the state or tribal lead pesticide regulatory agency to perform adult mosquito control applications, or by persons under their direct supervision.  Before making the first application in a season, it is advisable to consult with the state or tribal agency with primary responsibility for pesticide regulation to determine if other regulatory requirements exist.

IN CALIFORNIA: This product is to be applied by County Health Department, State Department of Health Services, Mosquito and Vector Control or Mosquito Abatement District personnel only.

PROHIBITION ON AERIAL USE: Not for aerial application in Florida unless specifically authorized by the Bureau of Entomology, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Do not contaminate food, feed or drinking water. Do not spray this product on or allow it to drift on pastureland, rangeland, cropland, poultry ranges, or potable water supplies. In treatment of corrals, feed lots, swine lots and zoos, cover any exposed drinking water, drinking water fountains and animal feed before application. Wear long sleeved shirt and long pants, socks and shoes.

DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide cannot be diluted in water. Dilute this product with light mineral oil if dilution is preferred.

USE AREAS: For use in mosquito adulticiding programs involving outdoor residential and recreational areas where adult mosquitoes are present in annoying numbers, and in vegetation surrounding parks, woodlands, swamps, marshes, overgrown areas and golf courses. For best results, apply when mosquitoes are most active and meteorological conditions are conducive to keeping the spray cloud close to the ground. Application in calm air conditions is to be avoided. Apply only when ground wind speed is greater than 1 mph. Air temperature should be greater than 50 F when conducting all types of applications. Do not treat a site with more than 0.0036 pounds of sumithrin or 0.0008 pounds of prallethrin per acre in a 7-day period. More frequent applications may be made if adult mosquitoes have reinfested the treatment area and to prevent or control a threat to public and/or animal health determined by a state, tribal, or local health or vector control agency on the basis of documented evidence of disease causing agents in vector mosquitoes or the occurrence of mosquito-borne disease in animal or human populations, or if specifically approved by the state or tribe during a natural disaster recovery effort. Do not exceed 0.094 pounds of sumithrin or 0.021 pounds of prallethrin in any site in a year.

SPRAY DROPLET SIZE DETERMINATION
Ground-based Application: Spray equipment must be adjusted so that the volume median diameter (VMD) is between 8 and 30 microns (Dv 0.5 < 30 um) and that 90% of the spray is contained in droplets smaller than 50 microns (Dv 0.9 < 50 um). Directions from the equipment manufacturer or vendor, pesticide registrant or a test facility using a laser-based measurement instrument must be used to adjust equipment to produce acceptable droplet size spectra. Application equipment must be tested at least annually to confirm that pressure at the nozzle and nozzle flow rate(s) are properly calibrated.

Aerial Application: Spray equipment must be adjusted so that the volume median diameter produced is less than 60 microns (Dv 0.5 < 60 um) and that 90% of the spray is contained in droplets smaller than 115 microns (Dv 0.9 < 115 um). The effects of flight speed and, for non-rotary nozzles, nozzle angle on the droplet size spectrum must be considered. Directions from the equipment manufacturer or vendor, pesticide registrant, or a test facility using a wind tunnel and laser-based measurement instrument must be used to adjust equipment to produce acceptable droplet size spectra. Application equipment must be tested at least annually to confirm that pressure at the nozzle and nozzle flow rate(s) are properly calibrated.

GROUND ULV APPLICATION
To control Mosquitoes and other listed insects, apply DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide at a flow rate of 2.5 to 7.5 fluid ounces per minute at an average vehicle speed of 10 mph using a swath width of 300 feet for acreage calculations (see chart below). Under normal residential conditions a flow rate of 4.5 fluid ounces per minute is recommended. If a different vehicle speed is used, adjust rate accordingly. These rates are equivalent to 0.0003 to 0.0008 pounds of Prallethrin and 0.0012 to 0.0036 pounds of Sumithrin® and piperonyl butoxide per acre. Vary flow rate according to vegetation density and mosquito population. Use higher flow rate in heavy vegetation or when populations are high. For proper application, mount the applicator so the nozzle is at least 41/2 feet above ground level and directed out the back of the vehicle. Failure to follow the above directions may result in reduced effectiveness. DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide may also be diluted with a suitable solvent such as mineral oil and applied by GROUND U.L.V. equipment so long as 1.24 fluid ounces per acre of DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide is not exceeded. Refer to the tables below for flow rate calculations for diluted end-use formulations of DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide.

Use the following table to calculate application rates:

[table viewable on the .pdf document]

DUET Dual-action Adulticide may also be applied undiluted with non-thermal, portable, motorized backpack equipment adjusted to deliver ULV particles of 50 to 100 microns VMD. Use 0.41 to 1.24 fl.oz. of the undiluted spray per acre (equal to 0.0012 to 0.0036 lb. sumithrin/acre) as a 50 ft (15.2 m) swath while walking at a speed of 2 mph (3.2 kph).

DUET Dual-action Adulticide may be applied for urban ULV mosquito control. For control of resting or flying adult mosquitoes, biting flies and biting midges in areas such as utility tunnels, sewers, storm drains and catch basins, pipe chases, underground basements, underground passages, parking decks, crawl spaces or uninhabited buildings. DUET Dual-action Adulticide may be applied using mechanical foggers, hand-held or truck mounted ULV equipment, non-thermal foggers or other spray equipment suitable for this application. Apply DUET Dual-action Adulticide at rates up to but not exceeding 0.0036 pounds sumithrin per acre in a 7-day period (not to exceed 0.094 pounds sumithrin per acre in any site in any  year).

AERIAL APPLICATION
Application shall be made when ground wind speed is equal to or greater than 1 mph. Applications shall be made when surface temperature exceeds 50ºF. Application shall be made at 75 feet to 300 feet for rotary aircraft and 100 to 300 feet for fixed-wing aircraft. Flow rate and swath width shall be set so as to achieve 0.41 to 1.24 fluid ounces of DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide per acre.  Appropriate spray systems include rotary atomizers, flat fan, high pressure, and high pressure impaction nozzles characterized and oriented to achieve the droplet characteristics above.
DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide may also be diluted with a suitable solvent such as mineral oil and applied by aerial U.L.V. equipment so long as 1.24 fluid ounces per acre of DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide is not exceeded. Refer to the tables below [on .pdf] for flow rate calculations for diluted end-use formulations of DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide.
* based on Sumithrin Concentration

[Dosage table at .pdf site]

DDILUTION CALCULATIONS
DUET™ Dual-action Adulticide (Prallethrin + Sumithrin® + PBO) Formulation Dilution Table
UNDILUTED DUET™ DUAL-ACTION ADULTICIDE

[See .pdf for dilution table]

STORAGE & DISPOSAL

Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.

PESTICIDE STORAGE: Store in a cool, dry place. Keep container closed.

PESTICIDE DISPOSAL:Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility.

CONTAINER DISPOSAL: Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of container in a sanitary landfill, or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities.

NOTICE: To the extent provided by law, seller makes no warranty, expressed or implied concerning the use of this product other than as indicated on the label. Buyer assumes all risk of use and/or handling of this material when use and/or handling is contrary to label instructions.

DUET™ is a Trademark of Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc.
Sumithrin™ is a Trademark of Sumitomo Company, Ltd.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL: 1-800-323-5727

Manufactured For
CLARKE MOSQUITO CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC.
Roselle, Illinois 60172 U.S.A.
EPA Reg. No.: 1021-1795-8329 Net Contents: 55 GAL
EPA Est. No.: 1021-MN-2 Lot/Batch:

Just FYI.

More:


Why you should be concerned about mercury pollution

December 28, 2011

Mercury poisoning marches through our culture with a 400-year-old trail, at least.  “Mad as a hatter” refers to the nerve damage hatmakers in Europe demonstrated, nerve damage we now know came from mercury poisoning.

In the 20th century annals of pollution control, the Minimata disaster stands as a monument to unintended grotesque consequences of pollution, of mercury poisoning.

A key Japanese documentary on the disaster is now available from Zakka Films on DVD, with English subtitles.

Anyone who scoffs at EPA’s four-decades of work to reduce mercury pollution should watch this film before bellyaching about damage to industry if we don’t allow industry to kill babies and kittens in blind, immoral pursuit of profit at public expense.

American Elephants, for example, is both shameless and reckless  in concocting lies about mercury pollution regulation (that site will not allow comments that do not sing in harmony with the pro-pollution campaign (I’d love for someone to prove me wrong)).  Almost every claim made at that post is false.  Mercury is not harmless; mercury from broken CFL bulbs cannot begin to compare to mercury in fish and other animals; mercury pollution is not minuscule (mercury warnings stand in all 48 contiguous states, warning against consumption of certain fish).  President Obama has never urged anything but support for the coal-fired power industry — although he has expressed concerns about pollution, as any sane human would.

Republicans have lost their moral compass, and that loss is demonstrated in the unholy campaign for pollution, the campaign against reducing mercury emissions.  It’s tragic.  Action will be required in November to stop the tragedy from spreading.  Will Americans respond as they should at the ballot boxes?

Can you watch “Minimata:  The Victims and Their World,” and not urge stronger controls on mercury emissions?  Can you support the murder of children and workers, for profit?


A cure for the ills caused by air pollution: Vitamin D in milk

October 29, 2011

Air pollution texts often made the note, but I’ve not seen it talked about much recently:  Air pollution in the U.S. (and England) was so bad in the first years of the 20th century that it actually shut out the sun, and an epidemic of rickets followed.

FSA photo of child in Jefferson, Texas, with rickets - Library of Congress

Child with rickets, son of relief client near Jefferson, Texas. This child has never talked though he is two years old. He has never received any medical attention. Lee, Russell, 1903-1986, photographer. CREATED/PUBLISHED 1939 Mar. More information about the FSA/OWI Collection is available at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.fsaowi; CALL NUMBER LC-USF34- 032719-D REPRODUCTION NUMBER LC-USF34-032719-D DLC (b&w film neg.)

Public health officials, clever devils, discovered a form of vitamin D that prevented rickets.  It turns out that humans manufacture vitamin D from cholesterol, using ultraviolet B from the sun.  So, when the sun was smokily eclipsed, rickets proliferated.

In an era when technical and legal tools were inadequate to clean up the air pollution, physicians, nutritionists and researchers struck on the idea of supplementing food with vitamin D — and that is how we come to have vitamin D-fortified milk today, and a lot less rickets.

I was happy to find a publication at the National Institutes of Health that relates this history, at least in part, “Solar Ultraviolet Radiation and Vitamin D:  A Historical Perspective,” by Kumaravel Rajakumar, MD, Susan L. Greenspan, MD, Stephen B. Thomas, PhD, and Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, in American Journal of Public Health, October 2007, Vol 97, No. 10.

At the dawn of the 20th century, the expansive industrialization and urban migration in the major cities of western Europe and the northern United States set the stage for the high prevalence of rickets among infants residing in those polluted and “sunless” cities. Overcrowded living conditions in the big-city slums and tenements and the sunlight deprivation precipitated by atmospheric pollution from smoke and smog were responsible for a rickets epidemic.  Increased ozone concentration from industrial pollution and the haze and clouds from atmospheric pollution compromise vitamin D production by absorbing the UV-B photons essential for its synthesis.

*          *          *          *          *

Edwards Park states, “But for rickets vitamin D would not have been discovered. Its discovery was the secret to rickets; its use is essentially the therapy of that disease.” The discovery of vitamin D led to the eradication of the epidemic rickets of the early 20th century. Pioneering advances were made in the understanding of vitamin D and rickets from 1915 to 1935. The discovery of the synthesis of vitamin D by the irradiation of foods was the “jewel in the crown” of vitamin D discoveries. This discovery was a catalyst for the public health triumph against rickets. It became feasible to fortify and enrich milk and other foods with vitamin D to ensure that the general population was likely to consume sufficient vitamin D.

It’s a good article with detailed history of rickets, the search to find what turned out to be vitamin D, and the use of nutritional supplements to eradicate a nasty, crippling disease in children.  Happy to see it online.

Some of our greatest triumphs in science, technology and public health are too little known.  I am working on the history of technology and science, and particularly its wedding with social progressivism in the Progressive Age, part of a project I was fortunate to stumble into in the Dallas Independent School District funded by a Teaching American History Grant from the U.S. Department of Education.  Sadly, Republicans in Congress insisted on cutting those grants to improve teaching with greater emphasis on original sources and original documents.

More Americans, more American school kids, should know about the triumphs of public health and science.  Maybe highlighting some of those advances here can help another teacher somewhere else.

 


Fighting malaria with indoor use of insecticides, with USAID money

September 18, 2011

Short video demonstrating the Indoor Residual Spraying program in Mali, financed by funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Note there is no ban on DDT, note that fighting malaria, even with poisons for mosquitoes, requires more than just spraying poison.

The video is in French.

539 views, September 18, 2011

Mandy Moore Talks Mosquito Nets – ABC News

December 13, 2010

Don’t ask me what work she’s done, because I couldn’t tell you.  I can tell — based on the headlines of the clipping services — that Mandy Moore is popular.

Ironically, in her brief tour of Africa and — shall we label it? — probably-shallow understanding of the issues, Ms. Moore has a deeper understanding of malaria and how to fight it than the most erudite of the DDT denialists, like Michael Crichton, or Rutledge Taylor.  Innocence wins.

For ABC News, the actress talked about charity work in Africa:

Mandy Moore Talks Mosquito Nets – ABC News, posted with vodpod

It’s a case of a celebrity doing “Do a Good Deed” duty, most likely.  In the video, Mandy Moore puts DDT denialists to shame.  In writing?  Moore doesn’t come off as well.  (Did she write that piece herself?  Maybe she should write what she talks.)


Do bednets make a difference?

September 4, 2010

Go see these two Associated Press photos from Pakistan, at MSNBC’s site — same location, same day.


DDT and birth defects: South African television asks questions

July 23, 2010

Steven Milloy, Roger Bate, and Richard Tren hope you never see this television production — they hope you never even hear about it.  It’s one more indication that Rachel Carson was right.

They hope you never even hear about it.  It’s set for telecast in South Africa next Tuesday:

Special Assignment to broadcast episode on ‘Collateral Damage’

Published: 22 July 2010

This week, Special Assignment looks at those affected by the dangerous DDT chemical and also those who say it is a necessary evil to prevent many South Africans from dying.

“I have problems with my balls,” says ‘George’. “I was born without testicles,” adds ‘Joseph’, yet another man born in the Limpopo area. These two and many other young men in Venda share a common story.

Each year, South Africa sprays more than 90 tonnes of the toxic DDT chemical in homesteads in KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo areas. Though DDT, a persistent organic chemical which can remain in the environment for as much as 40 years is banned across the world, South Africa still uses it to control malaria in the country. Recent studies have however showed that DDT is harmful to humans with hundreds of kids born in the Venda area showing signs of genital deformities. The chemical has also been associated with breast cancer; diabetes; and spontaneous abortion. Yet it remains South Africa’s best option for the prevention of malaria which kills millions of people each year across Africa. This week, Special Assignment looks at those affected by this chemical and also those who say it is a necessary evil to prevent many other South Africans from dying.

‘Collateral Damage’ will be broadcast on Special Assignment on Tuesday, 27 July, at 20:31 on SABC3.


University of Arizona’s “malaria-proof” mosquito

July 15, 2010

This could be good news:  A genetically-altered mosquito that doesn’t harbor the malaria parasite, and so cannot pass it along to humans it bites in its later life.

One more way to end the use and production of DDT.

Press release from the University of Arizona (one of my alma mater schools):

The first malaria-proof mosquito

Scientists at the University of Arizona have achieved a breakthrough in the fight against malaria: a mosquito that can no longer give the disease to humans

IMAGE: Michael Riehle, holding genetically altered mosquitoes, and his team work in a highly secure lab environment to prevent genetically altered mosquitoes from escaping.

Click here for more information.

For years, researchers worldwide have attempted to create genetically altered mosquitoes that cannot infect humans with malaria. Those efforts fell short because the mosquitoes still were capable of transmitting the disease-causing pathogen, only in lower numbers.

Now for the first time, University of Arizona entomologists have succeeded in genetically altering mosquitoes in a way that renders them completely immune to the parasite, a single-celled organism called Plasmodium. Someday researchers hope to replace wild mosquitoes with lab-bred populations unable to act as vectors, i.e. transmit the malaria-causing parasite.

“If you want to effectively stop the spreading of the malaria parasite, you need mosquitoes that are no less than 100 percent resistant to it. If a single parasite slips through and infects a human, the whole approach will be doomed to fail,” said Michael Riehle, who led the research effort, the results of which will be published July 15 in the journal Public Library of Science Pathogens. Riehle is a professor of entomology in the UA’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and is a member of the BIO5 Institute.

Riehle’s team used molecular biology techniques to design a piece of genetic information capable of inserting itself into a mosquito’s genome. This construct was then injected into the eggs of the mosquitoes. The emerging generation carries the altered genetic information and passes it on to future generations. For their experiments, the scientists used Anopheles stephensi, a mosquito species that is an important malaria vector throughout the Indian subcontinent.

The researchers targeted one of the many biochemical pathways inside the mosquito’s cells. Specifically, they engineered a piece of genetic code acting as a molecular switch in the complex control of metabolic functions inside the cell. The genetic construct acts like a switch that is always set to “on,” leading to the permanent activity of a signaling enzyme called Akt. Akt functions as a messenger molecule in several metabolic functions, including larval development, immune response and lifespan.

When Riehle and his co-workers studied the genetically modified mosquitoes after feeding them malaria-infested blood, they noticed that the Plasmodium parasites did not infect a single study animal.

IMAGE: Under UV light, this mosquito larva reveals a red fluorescent marker in its nervous system, causing eyes and nerves to glow. The marker’s presence tells the researchers in Riehle’s…

Click here for more information.

“We were surprised how well this works,” said Riehle. “We were just hoping to see some effect on the mosquitoes’ growth rate, lifespan or their susceptibility to the parasite, but it was great to see that our construct blocked the infection process completely.”

Of the estimated 250 million people who contract malaria each year, 1 million – mostly children – do not survive. Ninety percent of the number of fatalities, which Riehle suspects to be underreported, occur in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Each new malaria case starts with a bite from a vector – a mosquito belonging to the genus Anopheles. About 25 species of Anopheles are significant vectors of the disease.

Only the female Anopheles mosquitoes feed on blood, which they need to produce eggs. When they bite an infected human or animal, they ingest the malaria parasite.

Once the Plasmodium cells find themselves in the insect’s midgut, they spring into action. They leave the insect’s digestive tract by squeezing through the midgut lining. The vast majority of Plasmodium cells do not survive this journey and are eliminated by the mosquito’s immune cells. A tiny fraction of parasite cells, usually not more than a handful, make it and attach themselves on the outside of the midgut wall where they develop into brooding cells called oocysts.

Within 10-12 days, thousands of new Plasmodium cells, so-called sporozoites, sprout inside the oocyst. After hatching from the oocyst, the sporozoites make their way into the insect’s salivary glands where they lie in wait until the mosquito finds a victim for a blood meal. When the mosquito bites, some sporozoites are flushed into the victim’s bloodstream.

“The average mosquito transmits about 40 sporozoites when it bites,” said Riehle, “but it takes only one to infect a human and make a new malaria victim.”

Several species of Plasmodium exist in different parts of the world, all of which are microscopically small single-celled organisms that live in their hosts’ red blood cells. Each time the parasites undergo a round of multiplication, their host cells burst and release the progeny into the bloodstream, causing the painful bouts of fever that malaria is known and feared for.

Malaria killed more soldiers in the Civil War than the fighting, according to Riehle. In fact, malaria was prevalent in most parts of the U.S. until the late 1940s and early 1950, when DDT spraying campaigns wiped the vectors off the map. Today, a new case of malaria occurs in the U.S. only on rare occasions.

The severity of the disease depends very largely on the species of the Plasmodium parasite the patient happens to contract.

“Only two species of Plasmodium cause the dreaded relapses of the disease,” said Riehle. “One of them, Plasmodium vivax, can lie dormant in the liver for 10 to 15 years, but now drugs have become available that target the parasites in the liver as well as those in the blood cells.”

That said, there are no effective or approved malaria vaccines. A few vaccine candidates have gone to clinical trials but they were shown to either be ineffective or provide only short-term protection. If an effective vaccine were to be developed, distribution would be a major problem, Riehle said.

Researchers and health officials put higher hopes into eradication programs, which aim at the disease-transmitting mosquitoes rather than the pathogens that cause it.

“The question is ‘What can we do to turn a good vector into a bad vector?’” Riehle said.

“The eradication scenario requires three things: A gene that disrupts the development of the parasite inside the mosquito, a genetic technique to bring that gene into the mosquito genome and a mechanism that gives the modified mosquito an edge over the natural populations so they can displace them over time.”

“The third requirement is going to be the most difficult of the three to realize,” he added, which is why his team decided to tackle the other two first.

“It was known that the Akt enzyme is involved in the mosquito’s growth rate and immune response, among other things,” Riehle said. “So we went ahead with this genetic construct to see if we can ramp up Akt function and help the insects’ immune system fight off the malaria parasite.”

The second rationale behind this approach was to use Akt signaling to stunt the mosquitoes’ growth and cut down on its lifespan.

“In the wild, a mosquito lives for an average of two weeks,” Riehle explained. “Only the oldest mosquitoes are able to transmit the parasite. If we can reduce the lifespan of the mosquitoes, we can reduce the number of infections.”

His research team discovered that mosquitoes carrying two copies of the altered gene had lost their ability to act as malaria vectors altogether.

“In that group of mosquitoes, not a single Plasmodium oocyst managed to form.”

At this point, the modified mosquitoes exist in a highly secured lab environment with no chance of escape. Once researchers find a way to replace wild mosquito populations with lab-bred ones, breakthroughs like the one achieved by Riehle’s group could pave the way toward a world in which malaria is all but history.

###

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Reference: Corby-Harris et al. Activation of Akt Signaling Reduces the Prevalence and Intensity of Malaria Parasite Infection and Lifespan in Anopheles stephensi Mosquitoes. Public Library of Science (PLoS) Pathogens, July 2010 issue: www.plospathogens.org

How do you like them genetic engineering guys now?


Malaria tough to beat: Canadian Press review of The Fever

July 5, 2010

At Canadian Press, Carl Hartman reviewed The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years, a dramatic work of non-fiction about malaria and mosquitoes by Sonia Shah (Sarah Crichton Books/Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2010).  Hartman concluded:

Evidence of mosquito resistance to the drug has been recently reported.

Shah is skeptical of a surge of private charity that emphasizes the use of mosquito nets following the decline of government-led anti-malaria programs in the 1990s. Acknowledging the contributions of Bill Gates and former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, she lists Veto the ‘Squito, a youth-led charity; Nothing but Nets, an anti-malarial basketball charity; and World Swim Against Malaria. She quotes The New York Times as decrying “hip ways to show you care.”

Her own comment: “Just because something is simple doesn’t necessarily mean that people will do it.”

“(T)he schools, roads, clinics, secure housing and good governance that enable regular prevention and prompt treatment must be built,” she concludes. “Otherwise the cycle of depression and resurgence will begin anew; malaria will win, as it always has.”

Anti-environmentalists, anti-scientists, and other conservatives won’t like the book:  It says we can’t beat malaria cheaply by just spreading a lot of poison on Africa and Africans.

Especially if you’re doing the noble thing and vacationing in the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama, or Mississippi, or Louisiana, you may want to read this.  If you’re vacationing in the Hamptons, Martha’s Vinyard, or Cannes, buy several copies to pass out at dinner with your friends.

More:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,991 other followers

%d bloggers like this: